Utilities and Service Systems
As described in Chapters 3.15, and 4.0, the proposed General Plan would result in a significant impact relating Utilities. As described under Impact 3.15‐1 General Plan implementation would result in insufficient water supplies available to serve the City and reasonably foreseeable future development during multiple dry years.
New development would place increased demands on utilities. Under all alternativesthe Planning Area would be developed with similar development patterns. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in the least amount of non‐residential development and smallest increase in housing units and population would be under the proposed General Plan. The quantity of infrastructure installed would not be substantially reduced under any alternative, as all alternatives would require similar development patterns and footprints, but the demand for utility services, including wastewater and solid waste services would generally be assumed to be less under the proposed General Plan due to its reduced housing. Impacts under Alternative 3 would also be slightly reduced compared to Alternatives 1 and 2, which include more residential units that would require greater amounts of water and wastewater services and utilities.
Total storm drainage runoff under all alternatives would be approximately the same when compared to the proposed Project, due to the general development footprint remaining the same.
Overall, the proposed Project’s demand for utilities would be slightly less than under alternatives 1, 2, and 3.
Wildfire
As described in Chapter 3.16 (Wildfire), the proposed General Plan would result in less than significant impacts relating to all Wildfire impacts. All alternatives would result in similar development patterns and a similar development footprint. The impact under all other scenarios would remain the same.
ALTERNATIVES 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 5.0-23 Irreversible Effects
The proposed General Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact associated with irreversible environmental effects as described under Impact 4.17. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in a commitment of land uses designated for the foreseeable future. Land use and development consistent with the General Plan would result in irreversible commitments by introducing development onto sites that are presently undeveloped.
Additionally, development will physically change the environment in terms of air emission, noise, traffic, open space, and natural resources. These physical changes are irreversible after development occurs. Therefore, the proposed General Plan would result in changes in land use within the Planning Area that would commit future generations to these uses.
During the planning horizon, development under Alternatives 2 and 3 would be include similar overall development footprints and development patterns when compared to the proposed General Plan. Under cumulative conditions, Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more residential, and less non‐residential floor area (see Table 5.0‐1). All Project alternatives would use nonrenewable resources, including metals, stone, and other materials related to construction, and result in on‐going demand for fossil fuels and other resources associated with energy production at levels similar to the proposed Project. The associated irreversible commitment of nonrenewable resources and permanent conversion of undeveloped lands under Alternatives 2 and 3 would remain a significant impact. Alternative 2 and 3 would have a similar impact in comparison to the proposed General Plan due similar development levels, and the same overall development footprint, however Alternative 1 would not include an updated policy document that included additional policies and actions related to the conservation of resources and sustainable development patterns and therefore, would be considered inferior to all other alternatives.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.0-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative be identified among the alternatives that are analyzed in the EIR. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, an EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The environmentally superior alternative is that alternative with the least adverse environmental impacts when compared to the proposed General Plan.
A comparative analysis of the proposed General Plan and each of the Project alternatives is provided in Table 5.0‐4 below. The table includes a numerical scoring system, which assigns a score of 1 to 5 to each of the alternatives with respect to how each alternative compares to the proposed Project in terms of the severity of the environmental topics addressed in this EIR. A score of “3” indicates that the alternative would have the same level of impact when compared to the proposed Project. A score of “1” indicates that the alternative would have a better (or reduced) impact when compared to the proposed Project. A Score of “2” indicates that the alternative would have a slightly better (or slightly reduced) impact when compared to the proposed Project. A score of “4” indicates that the alternative would have a slightly worse (or slightly increased) impact when compared to the proposed Project. A score of “5” indicates that the alternative would have a worse (or increased) impact when compared to the proposed Project. The project alternative with the lowest total score is considered the environmentally superior alternative.
As shown in Table 5.0‐4, Alternative 3 (Balanced Density Alternative) is the environmentally superior alternative when looked at in terms of all potential environmental impacts. However, it should be noted that all of the alternatives would fail to reduce any significant and unavoidable impacts to a less than significant level. Throughout the preparation of the General Plan Update, the City Council, Planning Commission, and the community all expressed a desire and commitment to ensuring that the General Plan serve as a self‐mitigating document and should avoid significant environmental impactsto the greatest extent feasible. To that end, the proposed General Plan includes the full range of feasible minimization measures in the form of policies and actions that the City can take to reduce potential impacts to the greatest extent possible.
ALTERNATIVES 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan 5.0-25 TABLE 5.0‐4: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
PROPOSED
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 1
(NO PROJECT)
ALTERNATIVE 2
(MODIFIED
PROJECT)
ALTERNATIVE 3
BALANCED
DENSITY
(RESIDENTIAL
FOCUS)
Aesthetics 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 3 ‐ Same 3 ‐ Same Agricultural Resources 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 3 – Same 3 ‐ Same Air Quality 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 2 – Slightly Better 1 – Better Biological Resources 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 3 – Same 3 – Same Cultural Resources 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 3 – Same 3 – Same Geology and Soils 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 3 – Same 3 – Same Greenhouse Gases, Climate
Change, and Energy 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 2 – Slightly Better 1 –Better Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 3 ‐ Same 3 ‐ Same Hydrology and Water Quality 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 3 – Same 3 – Same Land Use and Population 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 3 – Same 3 – Same Mineral Resources 3 – Same 3 – Same 3 – Same 3 – Same
Noise 3 – Same 2 – Slightly Better 1 –Better 2 ‐ Slightly Better Public Services and Recreation 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 4 – Slightly Worse 4 – Slightly Worse Transportation and Circulation 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 2 – Slightly Better 2 – Slightly Better Utilities 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 4 – Slightly Worse 4 – Slightly Worse Wildfire 3 – Same 3 – Same 3 – Same 3 – Same
Irreversible Effects 3 – Same 4 – Slightly Worse 3 – Same 3 – Same SUMMARY 51 64 48 47
Overall, Alternative 3 isthe environmentally superior alternative asit isthe most effective in terms of overallreductions of impacts compared to the proposed General Plan and all other alternatives.
As such, Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior alternative for the purposes of this EIR analysis.
SATISFACTION OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Alternative 1
As described previously Alternative 1 failed to meet several basic Project objectives and thus was not further considered. Alternative 1 failsto meetseveral of the basic project objectives, including addressing new requirements of State law; and addressing emerging transportation, housing, and employment trends.
Alternative 2
Like The proposed Project, Alternative 2 reflects the current goals and vision expressed by city residents, businesses, decision‐makers, and other stakeholders; through the updated policy document, and addresses new requirements of State law, including climate resiliency planning, environmental justice, complete streets, etc. Alternative 2 meets most Project objectives.
Alternative 2 would provide for additional residential only land uses and fewer light industrial and business park type uses within the Planning Area when compared to the proposed Project.
However, Alternative 2 would provide for fewer opportunities for multifamily residential land
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.0-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan uses. Additionally, most of the land use map changes included on the Proposed Land Use Map are considered cleanup land use changes and matching existing and proposed development to correlated land uses. Therefore Alternative 2 would not implement land use cleanup editsto more accurately designated lands throughout the community.
Alternative 3
Like the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would satisfy all Project objectives as it would adopt the updated policy document as well as the updated Land Use Map. This alternative would update the land use descriptions to allow greater residential densities and would allow for more residential growth that would be allowed under the proposed Project. Alternative 3 meets all Project objectives and would be slightly environmentally superior to the proposed Project, as it would slightly reduce impacts related to VMT, Air Quality and GHG. However, this alternative would not reduce any significant impacts to a less than significant level.
Sa n Joaquin R.
Paradise Cut Circle
Lake
Middle R.
Tom Paine Slough
Old R.
Old R.
San J oa quin R. §¨¦5
S Mckinley Av
S Airport Wy
W Roth Rd
W Lathrop Rd
D Arcy Pk
Barbara Terry Bl
S
Guthmiller Rd
Bizzibe St
Mckee Bl
Cambridge Dr
W Yosemite Av
O St
W Yosemite Av
Thomsen Rd
J St
Fifth St
Seventh St
G St
W Woodward Av
E Louise Av
S
Manthey
Rd
Spartan Wy
W Louise Av
E Lathrop Rd
Land Park Dr
E Roth Rd
S
Manthey
Rd Nestle Wy
River Islands Pk
Mckinley Av
Harlan R d
Golden Valley
Pk
Howland
Rd
Walthall Slough
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
UV120
§¨¦205
CITY OF LATHROP GENERAL PLAN
Figure 5.0-1:Existing General Plan Map
Sources: San Joaquin County
Parcels 1/7/2020;
City of Lathrop. DMSParcels_V2.
Map date: April 17, 2018.
Revised January 22, 2020.
Repaired: August 2, 2021.
San Joaqu ni R.
Í 0 ¼ ½
Miles
UV120
Legend
Assessor Parcel Boundary
City of Lathrop
City of Manteca
Lathrop Sphere of Influence
Manteca Sphere of Influence
Area of Interest (AOI)
Land Use Designations
City
Proper
Central
Lathrop
South
Lathrop
Specific
Plan
River
Islands
Stewart
Tract
Lathrop
Gateway
City Proper
LD-Low Density Residential (1-7 du/A)
RecR: Recreational Residential (1-15 du/A)
MD: Medium Density Residential (8-15 du/A)
HD: High Density Residential (16-25 du/A)
NC: Neighborhood Commercial
VC: Village Center
CC: Community Commercial
SC: Service Commercial
FC: Freeway Commercial
PO: Professional Office
LI: Limited Industrial
GI: General Industrial
P: Public
ES: Elementary School
FS: Fire Station
NP: Neighborhood Park
CP: Community Park
OS: Open Space
Central Lathrop
VR-CL: Variable Density Residential (3-16 du/A)
HR-CL: High Density Residential (15-49 du/A)
R/MU-CL: Residential Mixed Use (10-40 du/A)
OC-CL: Office Commercial
NC-CL: Neighborhood Commercial
P-SP-CL: Public/Semi-Public
K-8-CL: Elementary School
VR/K-8/DS-CL: Elementary School
SPC-CL: Specialty Commercial
OC/VR/WWTP-CL: Office Commercial/Variable
(3-16 du/A)/Res'l Wastewater Treatment Plant
NP-CL: Neighborhood Park
CP-CL: Community Park
OS-CL: Open Space
South Lathrop Specific Plan
CO-SL: Commercial Office
LI-SL: Limited Industrial
P/QP-SL: Public/Quasi-Public Facilities
OS-SL: Open Space River/Levee Park
Lathrop Gateway
CO-LG: Commercial Office
SC-LG: Service Commercial
LI-LG: Limited Industrial
River Islands
RL-RI: Residential Low (3-9 cu/A)
RM-RI: Residential Medium (6-20 du/A)
RH-RI: Residential High (15-40 du/A)
NC-RI: Neighborhood Retail
RGC-RI: Regional Commercial
MU-RI: Mixed Use Town Center
RCO-RI: Resource Conservation
Stewart Tract
RC-ST: Recreation Commercial
R-ST: Residential - Stewart Tract
RCO-ST: Resource Conservation
RR-ST: Recreation Residential
UR-ST: Urban Reserve
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.0-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan This page left intentionally blank
REPORT PREPARERS 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 6.0-1
CITY OF LATHROP
Mark Meissner........................................................................... Community Development Director Rick Caguiat................................................................ Assistant Director, Community Development Glenn Gebhardt ............................................................................................................ City Engineer
LATHROP-MANTECA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (LMFD)
Joshua Capper............................................................................................................ Battalion Chief
DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP
Ben Richie .................................................................................. Principal Planner/Project Manager William Crenshaw .......................................................................................................Senior Planner Josh Smith ...................................................................................................................Senior Planner Jennifer DeMartino, ...............................................................................................GIS and Mapping Peak and Associates – Cultural Resources Consultant
Melinda Peak ....................................................................................................................... Principal Neal Neuenschwander...........................................................................................Staff Archeologist Saxelby Acoustics – Noise Consultant
Luke Saxelby......................................................................................................................... Principal Fehr & Peers – Transportation Consultant
Fred Choa............................................................................................................................. Principal Rodney Brown..................................................................................................................... Associate West Yost – Utilities Consultant
Jim Connell............................................................................................................ Principal Engineer
6.0 REPORT PREPARERS
6.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update This page left intentionally blank.
REFERENCES 7.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 7.0-1 Altamont Corridor Express. 2022. Schedules & Fares. Available: https://acerail.com/schedules/.
Accessed January 5, 2022.
Amtrak San Joaquin. 2022. Route 6 – Stockton – San Jose – San Cruz. Available:
https://amtraksanjoaquins.com/thruway‐bus‐2/route‐6/. Accessed January 5, 2022.
Asbestos TEM Laboratories inc. adapted 2011 U.S. Geological Survey open‐file report prepared by Bradley S. Van Gosen (U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO) and John P. Clinkenbeard (California Geological Survey, Sacramento.
Auditor of the State of California. 2021 (February). California Air Resources Board Improved Program Measurement Would Help California Work More Strategically to Meet Its Climate Change Goals, Report Number 2020‐114. Available: http://auditor.ca.gov/reports/2020‐ 114/summary.html. Accessed December 21, 2021.
Barbour and Major. 1988. Terrestrial vegetation of California.
Baumhoff, Martin A. 1963 Ecological Determinants of Aboriginal California Populations. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 49(2):155‐236. Berkeley.
Bay Area Economics. Lathrop General Plan Update Fiscal Conditions. July 2018.
Beardsley, Richard K. 1954 Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archeology (parts 1 and 11). University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 24, 25. Berkeley.
Bennyhoff, James A. 1977 Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publications 5. University of California, Davis.
Bennyhoff, James A. and Robert F. Heizer 1958 Cross‐Dating Great Basin Sites by Californian Shell Beads. University of California Archaeological Survey Report, 42:60‐92. Berkeley.
C Donald Ahrens. 2006. Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather, Climate, & the Environment.
California Air Resources Board (2018) Aerometric Data Analysis and Management System or iADAM Air Pollution Summaries.
California Air Resources Board. 2015. 2020 Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the 2020 Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/misc/2020_forecast_base0911_2015‐01‐
22.pdf
California Air Resources Board. 2017a. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm California Air Resources Board. 2018 (November). Progress Report, California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018‐
11/Final2018Report_SB150_112618_02_Report.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2020.
7.0 REFERENCES
7.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update California Air Resources Board. 2018b. Area Designations Map/State and National. Page last updated on October 18, 2017. Accessed on August 20, 2018. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm
California Air Resources Board. 2020b. Maps of State and Federal Area Designations. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps‐state‐and‐federal‐area‐designations California Air Resources Board. 2020c. GHG Current California Emission Inventory Data. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg‐inventory‐data
California Air Resources Board. 2021. HARP‐2 Air Dispersion Risk and Modeling Tool. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/harp‐air‐dispersion‐modeling‐and‐risk‐tool California Air Resources Board. ARB Databases: Aerometric Data Analysis and Management System (ADAM). http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/databases.htm.
California Air Resources Board.2019. 2017 Scoping Plan‐Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carb‐2017‐scoping‐plan‐identified‐vmt‐ reductions‐and‐relationship‐state‐climate. Accessed February 4, 2020.
California Air Resources Board.2020 (November 4). Mandatory GHG Reporting 2019 Emissions Year FAQs. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg‐rep/reported‐ data/2018mrrfaqs.pdf?_ga=2.229672724.900488366.1641423492‐126166612.1582760883.
Accessed January 5, 2022.
California Department of Conservation. 2002. California Geological Survey, Note 36.
California Department of Conservation. 2014. California Important Farmlands Map. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, San Joaquin County, 2014; California Department of Conservation. FY 2015/2016. California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act Status Report.
California Department of Finance. 2007. State of California, Department of Finance, E‐8 Historical Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 1990‐2000. Sacramento, California, August 2007.
California Department of Finance. 2017. Table E‐5, Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, January 1, 2010‐2017, with 2010 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, January 1, 2017.
California Department of Finance. 2021 (January 1). Table 2: E‐5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates. Available:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E‐5/. Accessed November 9, 2021.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2010. 2010 Strategic Fire Plan for California.
REFERENCES 7.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 7.0-3 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. FRAP Map. Available at:
<http://frap.fire.ca.gov/data/frapgismaps/fuel_rank_download>.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Joaquin County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Accessed December 2017. Available at:
<http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_sanjoaquin>.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Joaquin County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. Accessed December 2017. Available at:
<http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_sanjoaquin>.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 22022. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/Search.aspx.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2022. Envirostor Database. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics. 2001. California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
California Department of Transportation. 2008 (October). Caltrans Deputy Directive 64‐R1:
Complete Streets – Integrating the Transportation System. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/‐ /media/dot‐media/programs/local‐assistance/documents/bike/f0011235‐dd‐64‐r1‐ signed.pdf. Accessed: December 2, 2020.
California Department of Transportation. 2017. Caltrans Director’s Policy 22 (DP‐22), Director’s Policy on Context Sensitive Solutions. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/‐/media/dot‐ media/programs/local‐assistance/documents/ob/2017/ob17‐01.pdf. Accessed: December 2, 2020.
California Department of Transportation. 2018. 2018 Standard Plans and Standard Specifications.
Available: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/ccs‐standard‐plans‐and‐standard‐ specifications. Accessed December 2, 2020.
California Department of Transportation. 2018. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways.
Available: <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/schwy1.html>.
California Department of Transportation. 2020 (July 1). Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review (LDIGR) Safety Review Practitioners Guidance. Available:
https://dot.ca.gov/‐/media/dot‐media/programs/transportation‐planning/documents/sb‐ 743/2020‐07‐01‐interim‐ldigr‐safety‐guidance‐a11y.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2020.
California Department of Transportation. 2020 (May 20). Caltrans Vehicle Miles Traveled‐Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/‐/media/dot‐ media/programs/transportation‐planning/documents/sb‐743/2020‐05‐20‐approved‐vmt‐ focused‐tisg‐a11y.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2020.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Bulletin 118, California’s Groundwater, 2003 Update.
7.0 REFERENCES
7.0-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2006. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118.
San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. January 20, 2006.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2013. California Water Plan Update 2013 – Advisory Committee Draft. San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2016. Bulletin 118, California’s Groundwater, 2016 Update.
California Department of Water Resources. 1980. Groundwater Basins in California – A Report to the Legislature in Response to Water Code Section 12924. Bulletin 118 – 80. January.
California Department of Water Resources. 2003. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118‐Update.
October.
California Department of Water Resources. 2013. California Water Plan Update 2013: Volume 2 Regional Reports: Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta.
California Department of Water Resources. 2013. California Water Plan Update 2013: Volume 2 Regional Reports: San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region.
California Department of Water Resources. 2015. 2012 California Integrated Report, Clean Water Act Sections 303(d) and 305(b). April 8, 2015. Available:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/ir_staffreport_final.pdf.
California Department of Water Resources. 2017. Dams within the Jurisdiction of the State of California. Available:
http://www.water.ca.gov/damsafety/docs/Dams%20by%20County_Sept%202017.pdf.
California Dept. of Fish and Game. 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities.
California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. 2022. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) California Dept. of Water Resources. 2016. Integrated Report (CWA Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report).
California Energy Commission, 2017. 2016 Power Content Label. Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
September 2017.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pcl/labels/2016_labels/Pacific_Gas__and__Electric.pdf California Energy Commission. 2012. Energy Almanac. Retrieved August 2012, from http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/overview/index.html
California Energy Commission. 2017. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory – 2017 Edition.
Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm California Energy Commission. 2020. Energy Almanac. Available:
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/overview/index.html
REFERENCES 7.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 7.0-5 California Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. December 2010.
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/ California Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. December 2010. Available:
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/ California Geological Survey. 1992. Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist‐Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972 with Index to Special Studies Zones Maps. California Geological Survey (formerly California Division of Mines and Geology, CDMG) Special Publication 42, Revised 1992. State of California Department of Conservation.
California Geological Survey. 1999, Revised 2002. Simplified Fault Activity Map of California.
Compiled by Charles W. Jennings and George J. Saucedo.
California Geological Survey. 2003. The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps.
Prepared by T. Cao, W.A. Bryant, B. Rowshandel, D. Branum, and C.J. Willis. California Geological Survey. June 2003.
California Geological Survey. 2013. Seismic Shaking Hazards in California Based on the USGS/CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment (PSHA) Model.
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2017. General Plan Guidelines. Available:
https://opr.ca.gov/planning/general‐plan/guidelines.html. Accessed December 2, 2020.
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Available: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122‐ 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf. Accessed January 31, 2020.
California Natural Resources Agency (2012) updated mineral land classification map.
California Water Resources Control Board. 2017. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
CalRecycle, 2017. Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility. Disposal during 2016 for Lathrop. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/Viewer.aspx?P=ReportYear%3d2016%26Re portName%3dReportEDRSJurisDisposalByFacility%26OriginJurisdictionIDs%3d254 CalRecycle, 2018. Jurisdiction Review Reports.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/reports/jurisdiction/reviewreports.aspx CalRecycle, 2018. SWIS Facility/Site Search.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/directory/search.aspx CalWater, California Interagency Watershed Mapping Committee. 2008. California Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD).
CalWater, California Interagency Watershed Mapping Committee. California Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD).
City Of Lathrop 1996. West Lathrop Specific Plan
7.0 REFERENCES
7.0-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update City of Lathrop Community Development. (September, 2016). 2015 Housing Element. Available at:
http://www.ci.lathrop.ca.us/lathrop//cdd/projects/Pdf/housingelement_files/26‐01‐ 2017_16‐03‐50‐506.pdf
City of Lathrop, 2004. Central Lathrop Specific Plan Draft EIR.
City of Lathrop, 2004. Central Lathrop Specific Plan.
City of Lathrop, 2004. Comprehensive General Plan for the City of Lathrop, California. Adopted December 7, 1991.
City of Lathrop, 2010. Lathrop Gateway Business Park Draft Specific Plan. City of Lathrop with Wood Rodgers. May, 2010.
City of Lathrop, 2010. Lathrop Gateway Business Park Specific Plan.
City of Lathrop, 2010. Lathrop Gateway Business Park Specific Plan Draft EIR.
City Of Lathrop, 2013. South Lathrop Specific Plan Draft EIR.
City of Lathrop, 2014. City of Lathrop Department of Public Works Design and Construction Standards. City of Lathrop. January, 2014.
City of Lathrop, 2015. City of Lathrop Comprehensive General Plan Draft General Plan Amendment of 2015 SB 5 200‐Year Flood Protection Update. City of Lathrop. March 2015.
City Of Lathrop, 2015. South Lathrop Specific Plan
City of Lathrop, 2016. City of Lathrop Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan.
February, 2016.
City of Lathrop, 2017. Planned Development Map.
City Of Lathrop, April 14, 2016. Municipal Service Review and Sphere Of Influence Plan.
City Of Lathrop, October 1, 2002. West Lathrop Specific Plan City of Lathrop. 2014 (August). Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. Available:
https://www.ci.lathrop.ca.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public_works/page/5740/tra ffic_calming_program.pdf. Accessed December 16, 2021.
City of Lathrop. 2017. Comprehensive General Plan for the City of Lathrop, California. Available:
https://www.ci.lathrop.ca.us/planning/page/lathrop‐general‐plan‐document. Accessed October 25, 2021.
City of Lathrop. 2021 (February 1). Design and Construction Standards. Available:
https://www.ci.lathrop.ca.us/publicworks/page/design‐construction‐standards. Accessed January 5, 2022.
City of Lathrop. City of Lathrop 2015‐2023 Housing Element. Adopted September 19, 2016.
City of Lathrop. Lathrop Municipal Code, Lathrop, California. December 2017.
REFERENCES 7.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 7.0-7 City of Lathrop. 1995 (August 9). Lathrop Bicycle Transportation Plan. Available:
http://www.ci.lathrop.ca.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community_development/pa ge/5556/bicycle_transportation_plan_adopted_8‐9‐95.pdf. Accessed January 5, 2022.
City of Lathrop. 2017. Lathrop Municipal Code. Current through Ordinance 18‐397 and the August 2018.
City of Lathrop. 2020. City of Lathrop VMT Screening Criteria and Thresholds of Significance.
City of Lathrop. 2021 (August 4). Truck Route Map.
City of Lathrop. 2021. Lathrop Municipal Code, 17.76.120, Bicycle parking and storage standards.
Available: https://qcode.us/codes/lathrop/. Accessed January 5, 2022.
City of Lathrop. Adopted December 17, 1991. City of Lathrop Comprehensive General Plan.
City of Lathrop. Comprehensive General Plan for the City of Lathrop, California. Adopted December 17, 1991. Amended June 24, 1992, May 20, 1997, January 28, 200, and November 9, 2004.
City of Lathrop. Lathrop Municipal Services Review and Sphere of Influence Plan. Approved April 14, 2016.
City of Lathrop. Lathrop Municipal Services Review and Sphere of Influence Plan. Draft, 2022.
City Of Lathrop. West Lathrop Specific Plan Major Amendment August 15, 2006 Council Resolution No. 06‐2238
City Of Lathrop. West Lathrop Specific Plan Major Amendment January 28, 2003 By City Council Ordinance No. 03‐214
Cook, Sherburne F. 1955 he Aboriginal Populations of the San Joaquin Valley, California. University of California Anthropological Records 16(2). Berkeley.
Davis, James T. 1961 Trade Routes and Economic Exchange among the Indians of California.
University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 54:1‐71. Berkeley.
Department of Conservation (2012) mineral land classification map for Portland Cement concrete grade aggregate in the Stockton‐Lodi area.
Department of Conservation (2012) production‐consumption (p‐c) region, San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties, California special report 199‐plate 1.
DWR, 2018. Jurisdictional Request to Align the Eastern San Joaquin and Tracy Subbasins with the City of Lathrop’s City Limit. https://sgma.water.ca.gov/basinmod/modrequest/preview/163.
Accessed June 26, 2018.
EKI, 2017a. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Lathrop. EKI Environment and Water, Inc. October, 2017.
EKI, 2017b. Water System Master Plan City of Lathrop Integrated Water Resources Master Plan Update Draft. EKI Environment and Water, Inc. September, 2017.
7.0 REFERENCES
7.0-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update EKI, 2018a. Wastewater System Master Plan City of Lathrop Integrated Water Resources Master Plan Update Draft. EKI Environment and Water, Inc. January, 2018.
EKI, 2018b. Recycled Water System Master Plan City of Lathrop Integrated Water Resources Master Plan Update Draft. EKI Environment and Water, Inc. March, 2018.
Ellsworth, W.L. 1990. “Earthquake History 1769‐1989.” The San Andreas Fault System, California.
R.E. Wallace, ed. United States Geological Survey. Professional Paper 1515. Chapter 6.
FEMA, 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map San Joaquin County, California and Incorporated Areas.
Panels 06077G0585F‐0620. Federal Emergency Management Agency. October 16, 2009.
For City of Lathrop ‐ Lathrop Consolidated Treatment Facility San Joaquin County. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region. April 21, 2016.
Fredrickson, David A. 1973 Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
Gudde, Erwin 1969 California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hickman, James C. 1993. Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California.
Hillman, Raymond W. and Leonard A. Covello 1985 Cities & Towns of San Joaquin County Since 1847. Panorama West Books, Fresno.
Holland, R.F., 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California.
State of California, The Resources Agency, Nongame Heritage Program, Dept. Fish & Game, Sacramento, Calif. 156 pp.
Hoover, Mildred, Hero E. Rensch, Ethel G. Rensch and William N. Abeloe. 1990 Historic Spots in California (Fourth Edition), revised by Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.” Available at:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf International Energy Agency. 2018. FAQs: Oil. Available at: https://www.iea.org/about/faqs/oil/ Jennings, C.W. 1994. Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), Geologic Data Map No. 6, Map Scale 1:750,000.
Kangas‐Foulk, 2003. Crossroads Storm Drainage Masterplan.
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1953 Handbook of the California Indians. California Book Company, Ltd., Berkeley.
Larson Wurzel, 2017. RD 17 Area: Adequate Progress Report for Urban Level of Protection Final Report. Larsen Wurzel & Associates, Inc. June 13, 2017.
Latta, F. F. 1949Handbook of the Yokuts Indians. Bear State Books, Oildale, California.
REFERENCES 7.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 7.0-9 LGD, 1992. City of Lathrop Storm Drain Master Plan. Lew‐Garcia‐Davis Engineers/Surveyors.
Lillard, Jeremiah B. and William K. Purves. 1936 The Archeology of the Deer Creek‐Cosumnes Area, Sacramento County, California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 1. Sacramento.
Lillard, Jeremiah B., Robert F. Heizer and Franklin Fenenga. 1939 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 2. Sacramento.
LWA, 2015. Multi‐Agency Post‐Construction Stormwater Standards Manual. Larry Walker Associates. June, 2015.
MacKay & Somps, 2002. Amendment to the Master Drainage Plan for Mossdale Village.
MacKay & Somps, 2004. Central Lathrop Specific Plan.
MacKay and Somps, 2015. South Lathrop Specific Plan. City of Lathrop with MacKay and Somps.
May 21, 2015.
MBK, 2017. River Islands at Lathrop Phase I Area Report of Adequate Progress Towards an Urban Level of Flood Protection. MBK Engineers. February, 2017.
McNulty, M. Eliza and Wickland, Matthew. University of California, Berkeley. 2003. Redesigning Marsh Creek Dam to allow Chinook salmon passage, flood protection, and mercury sedimentation.
Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 2015. NASA:
Background Ozone is a Major Issue in U.S. West. Available:
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4723
National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 2014. NRDC Fact Sheet: California Snowpack and the Drought. April 2014. Available at: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/ca‐snowpack‐and‐ drought‐FS.pdf
National Resources Defense Council. 2014. NRDC Fact Sheet: California Snowpack and the Drought. April 2014. Available at: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/ca‐snowpack‐and‐ drought‐FS.pdf
National Transportation Safety Board. Accessed December 14, 2017. Available at:
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA), Web Soils Survey 2018.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2007. Pacific Gas and Electric Company Service Territory. https://www.pge.com/mybusiness/customerservice/otherrequests/treetrimming/territory/ Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2017. PG&E Renewable Energy Deliveries Grow; GHG‐Free Portfolio Is Nearly 70 Percent. March 16, 2017.
7.0 REFERENCES
7.0-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update https://www.pge.com/en/about/newsroom/newsdetails/index.page?title=20170316_pge_re newable_energy_deliveries_grow_ghg‐free_portfolio_is_nearly_70_percent Provost & Pritchard, 2016. South San Joaquin Irrigation District Urban Water Management Plan Pyron, Jennifer 2010. Images of America: Lathrop. Arcadia Publishing.
Ragir, Sonia. 1972 The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory. University of California Research Contributions 15. Berkeley.
RBF, 2003. Northern Area Portion Master Plan of Drainage. RBF Consulting. 2003.
RBF, 2006. Historic Lathrop Storm Drainage Master Plan Draft Report. RBF Consulting. October 2006.
Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2016. Central Valley Region Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins
Republic Services, Annual Report. http://phx.corporate‐ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=82381&p=irol‐ reportsannual
RWQCB, 2016. Order R5‐2018‐0023 Amending Waste Discharge Requirements Order R5‐2016‐0028‐01
San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). 2014. Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).
San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). 2018. Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).
San Joaquin Council of Governments. 2016. Measure K Renewal 2016 Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. Available: https://www.sjcog.org/300/Measure‐K. Accessed August 12, 2019.
San Joaquin Council of Governments. 2018 (June). 2018 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Community Strategy. Available: https://www.sjcog.org/278/Adopted‐2018‐ RTPSCS. Accessed November 5, 2020.
San Joaquin Council of Governments. 2021 (July). San Joaquin County Regional Congestion Management Program. Available: https://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/6264/Final‐ RCMP‐July‐2021. Accessed September 13, 2021.
San Joaquin Council of Governments. July 2009. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update – San Joaquin County Aviation System, San Joaquin County, California.
San Joaquin Council of Governments. July 2009. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update – San Joaquin County Aviation System, San Joaquin County, California.
San Joaquin Council of Governments. May 2016. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update for Stockton Metropolitan Airport.
San Joaquin Council of Governments. May 2016. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update for Stockton Metropolitan Airport.
REFERENCES 7.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 7.0-11 San Joaquin County Agricultural Commission. 2015. San Joaquin County Agriculture (Crop) Report.
San Joaquin County Agricultural Commission. 2016. San Joaquin County Agriculture (Crop) Report.
San Joaquin County Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2005. Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans.
San Joaquin County Air Quality Management District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19, 2015. Available:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI‐2015/FINAL‐DRAFT‐GAMAQI.PDF San Joaquin County. 2016. San Joaquin County General Plan. December 2016.
San Joaquin County. 2017. Parcel Data provided by the County Assessor’s Office.
San Joaquin County. 2018. Forward Inc. Landfill 2018 Expansion Project Draft Supplemental EIR.
August 2018. http://www.sjgov.org/commdev/cgi‐
bin/cdyn.exe/file/Planning/Environmental%20Impact%20Reports/Forward%20Landfill%2020 18%20Draft%20Supplemental%20EIR.pdf
San Joaquin Regional Transit Service. 2021. All Available Routes. Available:
https://sanjoaquinrtd.com/all‐routes/. Accessed January 5, 2022.
San Joaquin Regional Transit Service. 2021. Services. Available:
https://sanjoaquinrtd.com/services/. Accessed January 5, 2022.
San Joaquin River Group Authority (SJRGA). 2013. East San Joaquin Water Quality Framework website. Accessed: April 29, 2018. Available at: http://www.sjwatershed.org/default.html San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SQVAPCD) 2008, Climate Change Action Plan.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2015 (October). The eTRIP Rule ‐ Rule 9410:
Employer Based Trip Reduction. Available:
http://www.valleyair.org/programs/rule9410tripreduction/etrip_main.htm. Accessed:
January 5, 2022.
Sawyer, John and Todd Keeler‐Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation.
Schenck, W. Egbert and Elmer Dawson. 1929 Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley.
University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25(4):289‐413.
Berkeley.
Schulz, Peter D. 1981 Osteoarchaeology and Subsistence Change in Prehistoric Central California.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
Seaber, P.R., Kapinos, F.P., and Knapp, G.L., 1987, Hydrologic Unit Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Water‐Supply Paper 2294, 63 p.
Skinner, Mark W. and Bruce M. Pavlik, Eds. 2001. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California.
7.0 REFERENCES
7.0-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update Smith, Wallace. 1960 Garden of the Sun. Eighth edition. Original publication in 1939, privately printed.
Southern California Edison, 2017. 2016 Power Content Label. Southern California Edison – Default.
September 2017.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pcl/labels/2016_labels/Southern_California_Edison‐Default.pdf Southern California Gas, 2018. About SoCalGas. https://www.socalgas.com/about‐us/company‐ profile
State Water Resources Control Board, CalEPA. 2012. California Lakes and Reservoirs Impaired by Mercury. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/mercury/reservoirs/.
SWA, 2002. 2003 West Lathrop Specific Plan. The SWA Group. October 1, 2002.
SWRCB, 2013. General Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Order No. 2013‐0001‐DWQ. State Water Resources Control Board. July 1, 2013.
Thompson & West. 1879 History of San Joaquin County with Illustrations. Thompson & West, Publishers. Reprinted in 1968 by Howell‐North Books, Berkeley.
Tinkham, George H. 1923 History of San Joaquin County, California. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. 2000 U.S. Census Population, Household, and Housing Unit Counts.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. 2010 U.S. Census Population, Housing, and Housing Unit Counts.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. QuickFacts, Lathrop city, California. Available:
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts
U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2014. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) Available At: http://www‐fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ and http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2018. Web Soil Survey. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2018. Web Soil Survey. Available: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2016. California State Energy Profile.
Last updated October, 2016. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/state/print.cfm?sid=CA United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2017a. California State Energy Profile.
Last updated October 19, 2017. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2017b. Total System Electric Generation. Data as of June 23, 2017. Available at:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html REFERENCES 7.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update 7.0-13 United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2020a. Analysis and Projections. Short‐ term Energy Outlook. Release date: September 9, 2020. Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2020b. California State Energy Profile.
Last updated January 16, 2020. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2020c. Independent Statistics and Analysis. Frequently Asked Questions. Last updated September 4, 2020. Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=33&t=6
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2016. Basic Information about Carbon Monoxide (CO) Outdoor Air Pollution. Available: https://www.epa.gov/co‐pollution/basic‐ information‐about‐carbon‐monoxide‐co‐outdoor‐air‐pollution#Effects United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017. Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations – EPA. Available: https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=91 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019a. Health Effects of Ozone Pollution.
Available: https://www.epa.gov/ground‐level‐ozone‐pollution/health‐effects‐ozone‐pollution United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019b. Health Effects of Ozone In the General Population. Available: https://www.epa.gov/ozone‐pollution‐and‐your‐patients‐ health/health‐effects‐ozone‐general‐population
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019c. Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM). Available: https://www.epa.gov/pm‐pollution/health‐and‐ environmental‐effects‐particulate‐matter‐pm
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019d. Basic Information About Lead Pollution. Available: https://www.epa.gov/lead‐air‐pollution/basic‐information‐about‐lead‐ air‐pollution#how
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021. AERMOD.
United States Geologic Survey. 2018. Earthquake Faults and Alquist‐Priolo Zones.
US Census Bureau. 2019. American Community Survey Table B08301 Means of Transportation to Work. Available: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/. Accessed November 10, 2021.
US Census Bureau. 2019. Inflow/Outflow Counts of All Jobs for Selection Area in 2019. Available:
https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/. Accessed November 9, 2021.
US Geologic Survey; CalAtlas; Open Street Data Map date: January 17, 2018.
USEPA. 2017. My WATERS Mapper. Available:
http://map24.epa.gov/mwm/mwm.html?fromUrl=18040003
7.0 REFERENCES
7.0-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Lathrop General Plan Update West Yost Associates, 2018. Technical Memorandum: Infrastructure Analysis for the City of Lathrop General Plan Update. June 29, 2018.
William Lyon Homes, 2003. Final Northern Area Portion Master Plan of Drainage City of Lathrop.
William Lyon Homes. 2003.